收皮

一個二個都係咁講 :O

 

「怕辛苦」

忽然諗到一個好得意嘅問題：咩叫「怕辛苦」？

例如行上好多層樓梯會「辛苦」，但辛苦有咩好「怕」呢？ 唔係話要無視身體嘅狀況，而係辛苦嘅感覺只係身體對某狀況嘅反映 (eg. 會好多用體能)，可以用嚟決定某樣嘢係咪想做或應該去做，但「怕」好似從純理性角度係冇咩用，尤其係決定咗做某樣嘢之後，反正怕同唔怕都唔會改變到之後嘅感受。

自逸

20+ 年前，有次喺某親戚屋企食飯，叔公忽然同我阿媽講：師公話 [筆者我] 好叻。 然後我阿媽同我轉述咗呢樣嘢。我心諗：????  (按：呢度微言大義，其實因為大家唔熟，傳一個訊息牽涉咗四個entity...)

我不嬲唔缺乏自信嘅，不過到而家都唔知佢係讚我咩方面叻。冇記錯當時我都已經高中 (唔記得邊年)，開始嶄露頭角，不過唔通會考廿幾分呢啲嘢都值得特登提咩。

------

Synchronicity event - 啱啱搭緊的士，司機忽然指住個地產代理話：「嘩，改個咁嘅名嘅！」間嘢叫「冠逸」。然後佢就講起個「逸」字意思點解⋯ 我同佢講：我尋日先查完嚟，係「失去」咁解。 orz (見 title，本身意思係自己寫返啲逸事出嚟...)

Speculations

The soul is an algorithm. This algorithm takes a subjective world as input, and outputs the next subjective world. 

The persona is a diminished idea of the world processing algorithm focused on a particular set of states. These states are transient. Therefore rationally speaking it cannot be our identity.

The conscious being involves feeding the outputs of the algorithm back as the input of the algorithm. (Time is a side effect of this phenomenon.)

It is universally said that the purpose of us in the world is to learn. This is why we are limited in our ability to arbitrarily change either the inputs/outputs or the algorithm. We know from modern machine learning techniques that learning rates must be set to a small value, otherwise the model may overshoot and diverge. Therefore, although we have the ability to change things arbitrarily (aka “free will”), the effect of the change is very limited relatively speaking.

---

This is tangential, but the existence of many souls processing the same (or roughly the same) world might be some kind of optimization. World building is probably quite computationally expensive, so going massively multi-agent running different threads of consciousness on the same world might be the sane way to do it. But then, it's always a bad idea to attribute limitations to "God"'s computational resources. 

Of course

Of course that is what drawing lots are for.

Knew before I read up to that point.

Gnosticism simply makes sense.

Archetypes

 Seen on a youtube comment.

""" I'd just like to corroborate something Greg said about "who sees what deity when they pass on". I haven't had an NDE but had a profound experience when my father died back in 1985. My family is Catholic, but I've been following Sri Aurobindo and the Mother since 1983. During the Catholic funeral service, the priest was preparing the Eucharist, and suddenly my father was standing at the altar with the Mother next to him. He looked young and healthy like he did in his 30's. The priest kept walking through them as he did his preparations. I was seeing things and kept rubbing my eyes and looking again, expecting them to not be there - but they were. Mother looked over at me and winked. I heard a voice in my head saying, "You see me as the Mother, your father sees me as the Virgin Mary. People will see the Divine in a form they are familiar and comfortable with." When the service ended, they were gone. I believe that what I experienced was real and true. What she said just made so much sense to me as that's something that a God of Love would do! Love your podcast Alex. You and your guests bring a great service to humanity. Thank you. """"

Riddle

 "If two mind readers read each other's minds, whose mind are they reading?" -- seen on random fb post

Later update: of course the answer is that there is really only one mind in this situation.

How The Final Boss of Classic WoW Hardcore Was Defeated

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=023jLQJT1SM

Pretty crazy. Raid leader died but calmly continued leading the raid until the boss died.

Storm

There is definitely a storm happening, right now.

It's like, I'm merely peripherally affected, but I seem to have subconsciously rearranged my life to realign with the new order.

I guess I'm barely perceptive enough to feel it, but it's so powerful that we all can't help but look at it.

Gettier

The confusion in modern philosophy is best illustrated by the case of the Gettier problem.

Apparently modern philosophers believe that “knowledge” is “justified true belief”, an inoffensive definition that wouldn’t be out of place in a run-of-the-mill dictionary.

In so far as philosophy as a discipline is concerned with ensuring that dictionary definitions are logically sound, the fuss with the Gettier problem does make a lot of sense. But if philosophy is in any way a study of knowledge itself, the fact that it has no definitive answer to what “knowledge” actually means is reflective of the sad and confused state it is currently in.

Perhaps it is a historical problem. The gnostics had no trouble understanding knowledge. They definitely did not make the mistake of thinking it had to be justifiable. And the gnostics were heretics, which probably led to modern philosophy's feigned ignorance towards such ideas. Yet still, this underlies the fundamental problem of modern philosophy, and potentially most other intellectual pursuits: the obsession with "justification".

This is basically the same problem exemplified by social media, where content is not optimized for truth and positive impact to society, but for "likes, subscriptions and shares". In this context, “justification” is just a fancy synonym of “like”. The “justified true belief” (JTB) formulation of knowledge encodes a truth not of knowledge but of social dynamics: nothing is real unless it is embodied in the academic equivalent of a viral TikTok video.

This is not to say that justification is unimportant. Justification is necessary for communication. One cannot communicate truth without some form of justification. But justification is not part of knowledge itself, only communication of such. The confusion of knowledge with its communication is fatal for the JTB formulation, and the fact that many continued to cling onto it after the Gettier problem was known is a testament to the deep confusion between knowledge, truth and the communication of such among philosophy circles.

So, for sake of clarifying the relationships between the concepts, here is my formulation:

Objective truth is justified belief.

Unfortunately, it does not explain what knowledge is, because knowledge is a bit more nuanced, and requires invoking the concept of Subjective Truth, which, in turn, is outside the scope of this mini-rant.

Soul-talk

Sometimes they just speak to souls, not the body.

Like how in MMORPGs we often speak to the players, not the characters.

In a sense we don't really see a difference (except with hard core roleplay servers), so I suppose they don't either.

Eg. https://youtu.be/848bf9TV2MM?si=GmQXW7iQTJggaaI5&t=3068 ~51:08

Both?

Hard mode quest: To satisfy both spirit and body.

Drop

Like a drop in the ocean.

ACIM notes

creation = sharing&extension, over division, projection

oneness

indestructible truth

more convergence... and divergence

And more convergence. If one seeks and listens, and only trusts information repeated by at least 2 or 3 different sources, they will probably miss very little legit stuff.

And divergence -- what to make of the base facts diverge wildly, because it seems every source has a different goal which they generally hint at (while repeating their recommendations and advice)

abstract dynamic systems

When trying to corroborate things purportedly from divine sources, I keep realizing I need some framework to model and describe abstract dynamic systems...

In a sense that is all that we are, because our cultural facts don't matter as much to them.

In another sense, we must be gods to understand how gods think.

----

Let's say we want to explain why it is hard to "lie" in spirit.

Deception requires a held true belief and a communicated false belief. But while it is superficially possible to "lie" in the physical world because the materials don't respond much to the conflicting thoughts, the conflicting thoughts seem to cause a problem in spirit because what is believed is what is real and is what is radiated.

In the animal world there is a physical reality and a layer of symbols (eg. words, or other communication methods like vision or sounds) that purport to reflect the reality but not physically required to be accurate. However at the higher/refined states it seems that it is hard to get there while carrying a bunch of contradicting baggage, and thus it seems difficult ( i wouldn't say impossible ) for things to carry a layer of deception that contradicts what the entity actually represents.

Information is definitely withheld though. Which is why even in urban legends, the devil does not lie, it simply withholds information.

"Soul" as the decision algorithm

This is a rough sketch but it seems to work.

The "soul" is the decision algorithm. The reaction from circumstances.

It is not the body-mind.

It is not the memory.

And the "soul" that inhabits the body-mind can be changed.

It is the invariant in the "what would I do in these circumstances?" kind of thinking.  If two things react the same way given the same circumstances, it must then be the same identical thing.

The question is how much auxiliary memory does the "soul" possess and why does it have such memory? 

This idea must be further explored and consolidated.

------

Note that people tend to identify with their memory and life experiences, which apparently the "soul" is not quite that thing. People tend to regret, but their soul-as-decision-algorithm is hardly changed, with the only notable difference being the availability of hindsight. That sort of regret is meaningless.

It seems that changing one's decision algorithm does make a difference though, and apparently such change is spiritually profound and is potent for righting wrongs.

This idea must also be further explored and consolidated.

convergence

 The rate that truth converges is faster than I ever thought it would.